- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53728 WP No. 35677 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 35677 OF 2025 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN: SHRI ABHISHEK GOWDA B M S/O B R MUNEGOWDA, AGE ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/A BANDIKODIGEHALLI JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU 562 149. REP BY HIS GPA HOLDER NANJEGOWDA S …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRIHARI A.V..,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560 001. REP BY ITS SECRETARY 2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, EAST WING KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001. REP BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 3. THE SPECIAL LAND AXQUISITION OFFICER 2, KARNATAKA INDUSRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.39, SHANTHI GRUHA, BHARATH SCOUTS AND GUIDES BUILDING, 4TH FLOOR, PALACE ROAD, BENALURU 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISHA A S.,AGA FOR R1; SRI. B B PATIL., ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53728 WP No. 35677 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER DECLARING THAT THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.CI/422/SPQ/2005, BANGALORE, DATED 03.11.2006 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND FINAL NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.CI/212/SPQ/2007, BANGALORE, DATED 07.05.2007 VIDE ANNEXURE-B ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONERS LAND BEARING SY.NO.40/P16 MEASURING 04 ACRES SITUATED AT BANDIKODIGEHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK (YELAHANKA) AS ABANDONED, LAPSED AND NON-EST AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: "(a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or order declaring that the preliminary notification bearing No.CI/422/SPQ/2005, Bangalore, dated 03.11.2006 vide annexure-A and final notification bearing No.CI/212/SPQ/2007, Bangalore, dated 07.05.2007 vide annexure-B issued by the First Respondent in respect of the Petitioners' land bearing Sy.No.40/P16 measuring 04 acres situated at Bandikodigehalli Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk (Yelahanka) as abandoned, lapsed and non-est; - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53728 WP No. 35677 of 2025 (b) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or order quashing the preliminary notification bearing No.CI/422/SPQ/2005, Bangalore, dated 03.11.2006 vide annexure-A and final notification bearing No.CI/212/SPQ/2007, Bangalore, dated 07.05.2007 vide annexure-B issued by the First Respondent in respect of the Petitioners' land bearing Sy.No.40/P16 measuring 04 acres situated Bandikodigehalli Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk (Yelahanka) as the First and Second Respondents have not completed the acquisition proceedings within reasonable time; (c) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents not to interfere with the Petitioners' peaceful possession and enjoyment of schedule property. (d) Grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1-State and learned counsel - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53728 WP No. 35677 of 2025 appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3-KIADB and perused the material on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the Preliminary Notification was issued on 03.11.2006 (Annexure-A) notifying the schedule property along with other properties for formation of an industrial area and Final Notification was issued on 07.05.2007 (Annexure-B), the respondents have not taken any steps to pass the award or to take possession of the schedule properties even after a lapse of nearly eighteen years. It is contended that the proceedings have remained at the stage of mere notification and have not been followed by any substantive steps for acquisition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon several decisions of this Court which have been affirmed by the Apex Court, wherein it has been held that where no award is passed and compensation is not paid, even after an inordinate lapse of time, the acquisition proceedings deserve to be quashed. The decisions referred are: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53728 WP No. 35677 of 2025 (i) SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER Vs. ALOKAM VENKAYAMMA1 (ii) SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER Vs. K.B.LINGARAJU2 (iii) SRI. MUNIANJINAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS3, confirmed in the case of THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND ANOTHER Vs. SRI. MUNIANJINAPPA AND ANOTHER4 followed by RP.No.606/2022 dated 28.12.2022, which came to be dismissed and confirmed in SLP (Civil) Dairy No(s).5692/2023." 4. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of M/S KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS5, wherein it was reiterated that failure to take any steps for two decades amounts to abandonment of acquisition. 1 WA.No.6387/2017 D.D 07.03.2018. 2 WA.No.6819/2017 D.D 04.02.2020. 3 WP.No.10583/2016 D.D 01.04.2021 4 WA.No.1268/2021 D.D 17.03.2022 5 WA.No.238/2025 D.D 25.09.2025 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53728 WP No. 35677 of 2025 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3-KIADB, in support of statement of objections contends that under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Act, 1966 (for short 'the Act') no specific time frame is prescribed for passing an award, and that the concept of “reasonable period” must depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It is submitted that the acquisition cannot be said to have lapsed merely because some time has elapsed. 6. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the records. 7. The admitted fact remains that the Preliminary Notification was issued in the year 2006 followed by the Final Notification in the year 2007. The respondents have not taken any further steps to complete the acquisition proceedings, such as passing the award, determination of compensation or taking possession of the schedule property. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53728 WP No. 35677 of 2025 8. Even though the Act does not prescribe a fixed statutory period for completion of the acquisition proceedings, the settled legal principle is that where no specific time limit is prescribed, the authority must act within a reasonable period and delay of nearly two decades without any progress cannot, by any stretch of imagination be termed as reasonable. The prolonged inaction of the respondents indicates that the acquisition proceedings have been virtually abandoned. 9. In similar circumstances, this Court in the series of decisions cited above, have consistently held that when no award is passed and possession is not taken within the reasonable time, the acquisition proceedings must be treated lapsed. Thus, the Preliminary Notification dated 03.11.2006 (Annexure-A) and Final Notification dated 07.05.2007 (Annexure-B) deserve to be quashed as having lapsed and abandoned on account of inordinate and unreasonable delay in completing the acquisition proceedings after issuance of the Final Notification. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53728 WP No. 35677 of 2025 10. In the result, this Court pass the following; ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The Preliminary Notification dated 03.11.2006 (Annexure-A) and Final Notification dated 07.05.2007 (Annexure-B) are hereby quashed insofar as the petitioner's schedule property is concerned. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14